Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

Jeffrey Rosen
Pres. & CEO, National Constitution Center
MSNBCW 07/20/2014
Rosen: I thought that "New York Times" article was very interesting. Not only did General Alexander's successor Michael Rogers say you’ve not heard me as the Director say, oh, my god, the sky is falling, in contrast to the General Alexander's statement that the compromise was the greatest damage to our combined to our nation’s intelligence we have ever suffered, but the same "New York Times" article pointed to ways that surveillance has actually compromised U.S. security. U.S. companies have been more reluctant to cooperate with foreign intelligence services. Chinese hackers are better able to infiltrate our systems because of the back doors that have been inserted into them. Foreign leaders are refusing contracts with U.S. companies and the U.S. government. So the new Director of the NSA disagrees with his predecessor and points to specific and measurable ways in which NSA surveillance has not helped America but has actually hurt us.
Julia Angwin
Author, “Dragnet Nation, The Quest for Privacy, Security and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance” and Investigative Journalist at ProPublica
CSPAN2 09/01/2014
Rosen: You argue so powerfully in that chapter that it's not just privacy but free speech that’s at stake, that at the core of what the framers were concerned about was enough practical obscurity to be able to engage in political dissent. And yet as you say the Supreme Court has not been sympathetic to claims that mass surveillance violates free-speech. Angwin: No, The Supreme Court has not. There are a number of reasons why they've taken that path but largely it's been over the issue of standing, which is you can't prove you’re surveilled and so that you can’t show any harm. You know we have an interesting case coming up which is now after Snowden, people can prove that they were surveilled. So it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court revisits that.
Showing 1 through 2 of 2
Page 1